In 1974, when I obeyed the gospel, the issue of church-supported orphan homes had been debated among brethren for a good number of years. This subject, along with a discussion of colleges being supported from the church treasury, had already caused a great division among the Lord's people. It was apparent that the discussions on this matter had caused bitterness, anger, and animosity among those who had once been good friends and fellow-workers for the cause of Christ. Much of the controversy surrounded what James taught in chapter 1, verse 27. Does this verse authorize a church to build, maintain, or support an orphanage from its treasury?

Is this an individual's responsibility, or was James speaking about the collective action of a church? Notice the text surrounding the verse. In verse 19, every man is to be swift to hear; in verse 20, he spoke of the wrath of man. In verse 21, one is to receive the implanted word which will save his soul; verses 22-25, instruct individuals to be doers of the word and not hearers only, etc. In verse 26, James used several personal pronouns--he, his, and his--in teaching about one's religion. Then, in verse 27, he gave instruction to keep "oneself" unspotted from the world. It seems evident that James addressed these verses to individuals--not to the church.

Do we, as individuals, have a responsibility toward orphans and widows? Absolutely! The word visit is defined as "to look upon or after, to inspect, examine with the eyes; in order to see how he is, i.e., to visit, go to see one; the poor and afflicted" (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 242). Those who oppose church support of such institutions have often been labeled orphan haters, etc. Of course, this isn't true. If we are going to be what the Lord would have us to be, then when we see need and have opportunity, we have responsibility.

If a person really believes the most effective way to care for orphan children is in orphan homes, rather than dividing the church, why wouldn't that individual just send money from his own funds to support such facilities? You have every right to use your money in this way. It seems to me that the best way to care for orphaned and abandoned children is to adopt them and provide them with permanent homes. Those who are too old to provide such care for a child could use their funds to help those who can. Over the years, I've asked a number of couples who have children, if something happened to both of them, would they want their children placed in an orphan home or would they rather they be adopted? I've always received the same answer--they would rather they be adopted. I wonder if the government was aware of this years ago when it got out of the orphan-home business?

I have been told that the orphan-home issue was little more than a smoke screen to get the colleges into the local-church budgets. I'm not certain whether this is true, but I do know one thing: one man made the statement that church-supported colleges and orphan homes either stand or fall together. He's correct! There is no authority for churches to financially support either colleges or orphan homes. Someone gave me what seemed to be a sermon, which was supposed to show that there is Scriptural authority for the church to support colleges from its treasury. I read it with great interest, but I didn't see one single verse that gave even a hint that such is authorized by God. Where in God's word would one find such permission?

This entire issue makes me wonder if those in favor of church-supported orphanages are really as concerned about the children as they claim, or are simply trying to shirk their duties toward those in need. Do people think that dropping a few dollars in the collection plate on Sunday relieves them of all their financial obligations toward the poor and needy? Why not do what is best for the children?

Back in the 80s, a local-news station in Nashville reported that an account in a Lewisburg bank contained over a quarter of a million dollars that had been contributed to the Spring Hill Orphans Home by churches of Christ. That money was doing those children absolutely no good. I was told that many of the churches that had been giving to this orphan home stopped after they learned of this abuse.

May the Lord help us all to simply follow the New-Testament pattern given for the church's work. Let's not be guilty of adding anything to, or taking anything from, His written and revealed will (Galatians 1:6-9; Revelation 22:18, 19).

Brother Mickells has reminded us of a controversy that eventually divided the church in the 50s and 60s. Sadly, many brethren have not learned the lessons from past mistakes. I've read debates and discussions about this subject. Many objected because there is no Scriptural basis for church-supported institutions, and they felt that such support would "open doors that would never be shut."

Over the past decades, I have read of another great debate in the more liberal elements of the Lord's church-churches that supported human institutions but held the line on other innovations. There is intense debate between the institutional brethren and the so-called modernists in the church today over other subjects such as women preachers and elders, unity meetings, new hermeneutics, and expanding the social gospel. Churches that are still supporting institutions are fighting hard to avoid these other departures from the truth. What is interesting is the reasoning the institutional brethren are using to oppose these things: "God's word contains no commands, apostolic examples, or necessary inferences that supply authority." Fifty years ago, the institutional brethren rejected those arguments, but now they are using them against the modernists. They're good, sound arguments, but the truth is, these arguments also condemn the institutional brethren. Things simply went farther than the orphan-home advocates wanted to go; but both are wrong and need to come all the way back to New-Testament truth. The question is-will they? (KMG)